Hicks v. Hamkar et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/16/2017 DENYING 105 Motion for Reconsideration. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL HICKS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-01687-KJM-DB (PS)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
BEHROZ HAMKAR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
18
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The Magistrate Judge recommended
20
dismissing the complaint. Findings & Recommendations (“F&R”), Oct. 6, 2016, ECF No. 92.
21
This court partially adopted and partially declined to adopt that recommendation. Order, July 21,
22
2017, ECF No. 103. Before the court is plaintiff’s request, styled as a “motion for further
23
consideration of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations,” essentially asking this court
24
to address what he views as an omitted discussion as to defendant Dr. Nangalama. Mot., July 31,
25
2017, ECF No. 105. Below, the court clarifies its decision but DENIES plaintiff’s request,
26
construed as a motion for reconsideration.
27
28
1

1

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

2

claim against Dr. Nangalama, Dr. Venes and Dr. Hamkar. F&R at 11. This court’s order

3

declined to adopt the recommendation as to Dr. Venes and Hamkar, but does not mention Dr.

4

Nangalama. See Order at 2-4. Plaintiff is now confused as to Dr. Nangalama’s status and

5

liability. Mot. at 1. The court’s order, however, twice stated that “the findings and

6

recommendations filed October 6, 2016, are adopted to the extent consistent with this order.”

7

Order at 1-2, 6. Because the order did not discuss Dr. Nangalama or make any findings contrary

8

to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as to him, the recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth

9

Amendment claim against Dr. Nangalama was adopted. No claim remains against Dr.

10
11

Nangalama.
Because plaintiff’s one-page motion does not identify any legal or factual error

12

warranting reconsideration of this court’s order, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for

13

reconsideration. See Local Rule 230(j) (requiring a party to show the “new or different facts or

14

circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

15

or what other grounds exist for [reconsideration.]”).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

This resolves ECF No. 105.

18

DATED: August 16, 2017.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2